Hvordan Ethereums nylig splittede brukere påvirket?

For mindre enn to uker siden delte Ethereum-nettverket seg i to etter at utviklerne endret den underliggende koden da de prøvde å fikse en feil, som dessverre førte til en hard gaffel som delte nettverket og opprettet en ny versjon som bare var gyldig oppgraderte noder, men som var ugyldige for de som ikke oppgraderte.

Dette skapte noen få problemer innen Ethereum-samfunnet og tillot oss å se noen av forskjellene mellom Ethereum og Bitcoin.

Endringene kommer på et tidspunkt da Ethereum-handel er på topp takket være markedet bull run. Den nest største kryptovalutaen handler på rundt $ 514 etter å ha sett gevinster på over 12% den siste uken. Det er mye spekulasjoner på gang, og dette driver ETH-prisen opp.

Plattformer som PrimeXBT er vitne til en økning i brukere som vil tjene på å handle ETH uten å måtte eie eiendelen selv og bekymre seg for å få en lommebok til å lagre den og andre ulemper som følger med å ha et token.

PrimeXBT tillater brukere å handle CFD-produkter for forskjellige finansielle instrumenter som kryptovalutaer, der de kan spekulere i prisendringene på den underliggende eiendelen og tjene penger hvis prisen endres positivt eller negativt.

Hva førte til splittelsen?

Splittelsen fant sted den 11. denne måneden, tidlig på morgenen fra blokk 11234873 etter at Ethereum-utviklerne introduserte en kodeendring som etterlot de som ikke hadde oppgradert, fast i minoritetskjeden, ifølge Nikita Zhavoronkov, hovedutvikleren i Blockhair. .

Noen av de som satt igjen i minoritetskjeden var gruvearbeidere, men som alle andre personer som måtte takle denne ulykken, var det ikke deres feil siden det var en uanmeldt hard gaffel.

Nikita mener at nettverkets konsensusfeil ikke bør undervurderes og bør sees på som et alvorlig spørsmål og undersøkes som det var tilfellet med DAO for fire år siden. Splittelsen førte til et brudd som forstyrret Ethereum-økosystemet betydelig.

Ledende børser som Binance og Bithumb måtte deaktivere ETH- og ERC-20-uttak. En annen plattform som fikk tjenestefeil var Infura, som er en populær sentralisert Ethereum-nodetjeneste. Dette påvirket direkte MetaMask, en ETH-lommebok, og skapte problemer for ETH og ERC-20 token-prisfeed på andre tjenester.

Selv om det ikke har vært en offisiell rapport om hva som fant sted, ser det ut til at problemene har kommet fra hensynsløshet. Ethereum-utviklere er kjent for å ta i bruk filosofien „flytt raskt og bryte ting“ når det gjelder å utvikle kodebasen, noe som kan føre til uventede harde gafler.

Forskjeller med Bitcoin

Både Ethereum og Bitcoin er desentraliserte nettverk som bruker konsensus om arbeidssikkerhet, i hvert fall foreløpig. Ethereum jobber med å gå over til bevis på innsats på grunn av problemer med skalerbarhet. I motsetning til Bitcoin, utviklerne på Ethereum og samfunnet koordinerer for å gjennomføre ikke-bakover kompatible harde gafler.

Noe som fremhever deres sentraliserte kontroll over nettverket og reduserer rollen til individuelle nodedeltakere. Slik praksis kan være ok på Ethereum, men mange Bitcoinere ser det som et kompromiss på nettverkets integritet.

I følge Peter Szilagyi, leder ved Ethereum Foundation, ble de kontroversielle endringene gjort for å fikse en feil som ble funnet i kodebasen stille. Dessverre var den nye versjonen av koden mindre bevist og mindre stabil enn eldre versjoner, noe som kunne ha vært en grunn til at noen leverandører ikke oppgraderte.

Og siden oppgraderingen ikke ble kunngjort, følte brukerne at de hadde et valg å ikke oppgradere, siden de kunne være på den eldre versjonen. De forventet ikke at oppgraderingen ville dele nettverket i to, noe som er tilfelle for forhåndsplanlagte hardgafler som kunngjøres, og brukere har en klar forståelse av at de må oppgradere før koden blir satt i drift.

Den siste hendelsen fører til noen spørsmål om hvordan Ethereum og utviklerne oppfører seg. Man kan bare lure på hva som ville skje hvis noen kompromitterte nettverket og ga ut en ondsinnet kode, om den noen gang ville bli revidert og hvordan den påfølgende forvirringen ville bli løst.

Når det er sagt, kan Ethereum kanskje lære av Bitcoin Core-utviklerne som sørger for at de tar de nødvendige forholdsregler for aldri å innføre kritiske feil. Og programvaren deres er alltid designet for å være bakoverkompatibel.

Edward Snowden discusses government monitoring of protest movements

Edward Snowden discusses government monitoring of protest movements

Yesterday, Friday, prominent whistleblower Edward Snowden moderated an online conference as part of a fundraising campaign for the „Tor Project“ anonymisation service.

Besides Snowden, three other experts from the fields of data protection and human rights took part in the discussion. The four panelists discussed the worldwide protest movements of the Bitcoin Lifestyle past year, whether in Belarus or the USA.

Alison Macrina, founder of the Library Freedom Project, said: „What we saw in the protests for ‚Black Lives Matter‘ around the world this summer is that police authorities are also monitoring the activities of protesters in the social media.

Accordingly, the protesters would have been more careful about what they share and write:

„One thing that is already widespread in the US is that fewer and fewer protesters share photos or videos showing the faces of others. It’s great that there is an awareness that the people photographed or filmed might otherwise face punishment“.

Berhan Taye, an expert on privacy and Africa, cites the ethnic tensions in northern Ethiopia as an example

„There is an armed conflict in the Tigray region, and then the situation was made worse by the fact that the region was cut off from the Internet less than a month ago“.

As Taye continues, many people in the region have used Sudanese SIM cards to continue communicating with the outside world. When a massacre with 600 dead followed shortly afterwards, the population was killed not only because of their ethnicity, but also because the Sudanese SIM cards were found in their mobile phones.

Snowden concludes by addressing all Western audiences, noting that state surveillance „is not something that is very far away“, although he admits that there are certainly gradations in scale between countries. Nevertheless, he cites as an example that during the BLM protests in Baltimore, planes were sent into the air to collect telephone data of protesters.

„We have a two-tier system where the government can do whatever it wants while the population is oppressed,“ Snowden says.

In the wake of protests around the world, decentralisation has come up for discussion this year. Blockchain technology could play an important role in this respect. In addition, cryptographically encrypted messenger services such as Signal and Telegram are becoming increasingly important for organising protests.

Trader rzekomo popełnia samobójstwo po błagalnym wpływie

Trader rzekomo popełnia samobójstwo po błagalnym wpływie na pomoc

  • Kryptoflarz mówi, że handlowiec popełnił samobójstwo, błagając go o pomoc przez wiele miesięcy.
  • @CryptoCobain zamknął swoje DM w odpowiedzi.
  • W maju @ActualAdviceBTC również tajemniczo zmarł w Tajlandii, a Cobain zrobił sobie przerwę od Twittera.

Chcesz wiedzieć więcej? Dołącz do naszej Grupy Telegram i uzyskaj sygnały transakcyjne, darmowy kurs transakcyjny oraz codzienną komunikację z fanami crypto!

The Trust Project to międzynarodowe konsorcjum organizacji informacyjnych budujących standardy przejrzystości.

6 grudnia 2020 roku, Jordan Fish, znany z kryptońskiej osobowości KING CO฿IE lub @CryptoCobain, zamknął swój Twitter na bezpośrednie wiadomości. Zrobił to po tym, jak handlowiec, który błagał go o pomoc finansową, rzekomo odebrał sobie życie.

Popularny kryptoanalityk, który ma ponad 181 tysięcy zwolenników, tweetował Bitcoin Evolution niedzielę, mówiąc, że nie będzie już akceptował DM po tym, jak handlowiec, z którym rozmawiał, odebrał sobie życie. Powiedział, że otrzymał „zbyt wiele wiadomości, że w ten weekend popełnię samobójstwo, chyba że dasz mi 0.2 btc“.“

Cobain, deweloper, którego prawdziwe nazwisko to Jordan Fish i pracuje w banku Monzo w Wielkiej Brytanii, powiedział, że nie może potwierdzić, czy domniemana śmierć była prawdziwa. Powiedział jednak, że były partner zmarłego dotarł do niego po rzekomym samobójstwie.

Co dziwne, nie jest to pierwszy raz, kiedy Cobain publicznie komentuje tajemniczą śmierć. W maju 2020 roku, młody mężczyzna o imieniu Ben, który użył klamki na Twitterze @ACTUALADVICEBTC zmarł nagle w Tajlandii. Ben był kultową postacią, która była popularna na kilku portalach społecznościowych, w tym Steemit. W chwili jego śmierci Cobain powiedział Decryptowi, że Ben (prawdopodobnie jego przyjaciel) zmarł we śnie. Dostarczył też zdjęcie tych dwóch osób razem.

Niektóre z wiadomości, które otrzymał Cobain, czytane były jak napastowanie.

Użytkownik Twittera Business Cat (@buznizkat) twierdzi, że zidentyfikował zmarłego użytkownika jako OverTheEdge (@edgeoverevent). OverTheEdge’s Twitter wpisy cofnąć miesięcy, skarżąc się na rosnące trudności finansowe i życiowe i frustrująco sięgając do crypto Twitterati jak @stoolpresidente i @CryptoCobain o pomoc i porady.

Tweety prowadzą do groźby samobójstwa. Ostatecznie, kilka ostatnich postów zmarłego twierdzi, że @OverTheEdge jest jego partnerem, ogłaszając jego śmierć. Partner zauważył, że @CryptoCobain było często wymieniane w postach i dziękuje wpływowemu za wysłuchanie.

The big paradox: Is the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust really Bitcoin?

Many dogmatists argue and fight about the true meaning of these investors in the industry. How should we evaluate the case?

The price of Bitcoin is going up right now, because there are more buyers than sellers.

It’s as simple as that. Of course, the buyer always buys in optimism. That is, he buys today, because he thinks the price will go up in the future and he will make a profit. We would like to think, of course, that our assumptions about tomorrow are objective. However, in most cases, they are emotional bets motivated by the mood in the room. What we call „institutional capital“ is nothing more than a group of people who meet all the time at conferences and cocktail parties.

What is the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, and why is it in vogue?

The most important fund managers are well-known names. They usually all frequent the same clubs and eat at the same places. They compete for customers. But they often collaborate with each other when it’s convenient. The big goal of any fund is to beat the S&P 500 every year. It’s not always easy. But they have to do it in order to justify their high commissions. The world of hedge funds is not an easy world. The pressure is immense. Because the numbers must always reflect the promised success. Otherwise, the truckers‘ union, the accountants‘ college, the municipality, or the millionaire widow can take your money and start working with another fund that gets better results.

The Bitcoin Identity Crisis – Asset or Currency?

Passive funds are less stressful. These funds don’t promise anything. They simply put the money into a pre-established list of companies and that’s it. These are the famous index funds. The best known are Blackrock and Vanguard. These titans are in everything, because that’s precisely what they promise. That is, a piece of the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones. The great advantage of these funds is the low commissions. Hedge funds are controversial in this regard, because profits tend to be quite reduced due to high commissions. So, in many cases, it is better for the investor to invest in an index fund directly and save himself the complication.

This logic marked the success of John Bogle, the founder of the Vanguard Group.

The Grayscale Bitcoin Trust is a fund, created by Barry Silbert, that basically works as an ETF, but is not an EFT. That is, all it does is hold Bitcoin, but the fund as such is a figure in the stock market. So, traditional investors can simply call their broker and ask them to buy Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) instead of buying Bitcoin directly. This way, they get the best of both worlds.

The advantages of Grayscale are manifold. First, it’s extremely easy to buy large quantities. On the other hand, the investor doesn’t have to worry about regulatory, tax or custody issues. In other words, all the hassles of private keys, hacking, or legal ambiguity are no longer an obstacle to investing in Bitcoin in a big way.

These are very relevant issues for the institutional investor. We must remember that when we talk about institutional capital we are really talking about other people’s money. In most cases, these funds are funds of funds. For example, the humble nurse is a member of the nurses‘ union. The leaders of this union are always fighting for a better collective bargaining agreement, but at the same time they charge a monthly fee to their members. In many cases, these organizations provide multiple services such as insurance, retirement, etc.

The weakening of the dollar is a state policy. Why?

However, these funds are usually managed by a third party, because the union board usually does not want to carry such a burden. So they usually go to one of these fund managers. But we must remember that it is not easy to run a union. There is always the political rival, the jealous colleague, or the disgruntled member who is always looking for the five legs of the cat to discredit the current board. Not to mention that the authorities are always watching their every move for irregularities or acts of corruption. That means having Bitcoin in a cold wallet under the mattress is a big no in this case. Sorry, puritans, but that would be extremely irresponsible.

What we have now is a big triangulation. The funds put their money into a mutual fund and the funds are in turn putting a portion of this money into the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust. In December 2017, the buyers of Bitcoin were mainly retail investors.